Browsing by Author "Chikowo, R."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Communicating Complexity: Integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development(Elsevier Ltd, 2011) Giller, K.E.; Tittonell, P.; Rufino, M.C.; van Wijk, M.T.; Zingore, S.; Mapfumo, P.; Adjei-Nsiah, S.; Herrero, M.; Chikowo, R.; Corbeels, M.; Rowe, E.C.; Baijukya, F.; Mwijage, A.; Smith, J.; Yeboah, E.; van der Burg, W.J.; Sanogo, O.M.; Misiko, M.; de Ridder, N.; Karanja, S.; Kaizzi, C.; K’ungu, J.; Mwale, M.; Nwaga, D.; Pacini, C.; Vanlauwe, B.African farming systems are highly heterogeneous: between agroecological and socioeconomic environments, in the wide variability in farmers’ resource endowments and in farm management. This means that single solutions (or ‘silver bullets’) for improving farm productivity do not exist. Yet to date few approaches to understand constraints and explore options for change have tackled the bewildering complexity of African farming systems. In this paper we describe the Nutrient Use in Animal and Cropping systems – Efficiencies and Scales (NUANCES) framework. NUANCES offers a structured approach to unravel and understand the complexity of African farming to identify what we term ‘best-fit’ technologies – technologies targeted to specific types of farmers and to specific niches within their farms. The NUANCES framework is not ‘just another computer model’! We combine the tools of systems analysis and experimentation, detailed field observations and surveys, incorporate expert knowledge (local knowledge and results of research), generate databases, and apply simulation models to analyse performance of farms, and the impacts of introducing new technologies. We have analysed and described complexity of farming systems, their external drivers and some of the mechanisms that result in (in)efficient use of scarce resources. Studying sites across sub-Saharan Africa has provided insights in the trajectories of change in farming systems in response to population growth, economic conditions and climate variability (cycles of drier and wetter years) and climate change. In regions where human population is dense and land scarce, farm typologies have proven useful to target technologies between farmers of different production objectives and resource endowment (notably in terms of land, labour and capacity for investment). In such regions we could categorise types of fields on the basis of their responsiveness to soil improving technologies along soil fertility gradients, relying on local indicators to differentiate those that may be managed through ‘maintenance fertilization’ from fields that are highly-responsive to fertilizers and fields that require rehabilitation before yields can improved. Where human population pressure on the land is less intense, farm and field types are harder to discern, without clear patterns. Nutrient cycling through livestock is in principle not efficient for increasing food production due to increased nutrient losses, but is attractive for farmers due to the multiple functions of livestock. We identified trade-offs between income generation, soil conservation and community agreements through optimising concurrent objectives at farm and village levels. These examples show that future analyses must focus at farm and farming system level and not at the level of individual fields to achieve appropriate targeting of technologies – both between locations and between farms at any given location. The approach for integrated assessment described here can be used ex ante to explore the potential of best-fit technologies and the ways they can be best combined at farm level. The dynamic and integrated nature of the framework allows the impact of changes in external drivers such as climate change or development policy to be analysed. Fundamental questions for integrated analysis relate to the site-specific knowledge and the simplification of processes required to integrate and move from one level to the nextItem Participatory action research (PAR) as an entry point for supporting climate change adaptation by smallholder farmers in Africa(Environmental Development, 2013-01) Mapfumo, P.; Adjei-Nsiah, S.; Mtambanengwe, F.; Chikowo, R.; Giller, K.E.Emerging trends of a changing and increasingly variable climate have introduced new livelihood challenges in rain-fed smallholder agricultural systems that predominate in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The capacity of local farming communities and their institutions to respond to the new and emerging impacts of climate change is often constrained by lack of access to information and improved technologies, as well as poor support mechanisms to promote assimilation of new knowledge. This threatens to heighten vulnerability of the majority of SSA's rural communities who are already facing severe problems of food insecurity and a declining soil resource base. In this paper we use two case studies from Wenchi district in Ghana and Makoni in Zimbabwe to communicate how participatory action research (PAR) methodology, characterised by iterative planning-action-reflection cycles, was coupled with a new concept of field-based farmer learning centres to build adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change. The study was part of a University of Zimbabwe-led project supported under the Climate Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) programme to explore the state of resilience in African smallholder farming. The PAR and learning centre processes enabled communities, local leaders, and extension agents and researchers to establish the, hither to, imperceptible link between poor soil fertility and rising institutional challenges within communities. Institutional conflicts related to land tenure and sharecropping arrangements between migrant farmers and native landowners were addressed in Ghana, while local institutions supporting traditional social safety net mechanisms were revitalized in Zimbabwe. In both cases, it was apparent that farmers faced multiple stresses, at the core of which were poor and declining soil fertility and weakening local institutions. The worsening rainfall distribution and increasing cases of drought are broadening the scope for vulnerability, often driving competing claims and conflicts. PAR was successfully used as an entry point, empowering communities to self-mobilize and self-organize to co-learn and experiment with integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) technologies and other improved farming practices. They realised opportunities for achieving high crop yields and generate surpluses in good years. Strengthening local institutional capacity to revitalise community safety nets proved an essential ingredient for enhancing adaptive capacity of smallholders to climatic shocks. The PAR process was a major driver of effective partnerships among community members, extension, policy makers and researchers, but ensuing success generated a new set of social challenges that could not be addressed within the short timescale of the project. We conclude that PAR was a suitable mechanism for supporting self-organization and co-learning processes among smallholder farmers and their service providers, enabling them to use ISFM technologies and strengthen their local institutions around natural resource management. This revealed the scope for building adaptive capacity of these communities against climate change and variability. © 2012 Elsevier B.V.